Difference between revisions of "Oversight Board/2018-2020-candidates/Lionel Laské"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
* Sugarizer contents grow regularly and we could expect that it allow us to expand our user base. But SugarLabs lack of maintainer for Sugar core and for Sugar activities. We need to be clear about which platforms we want to maintain and allow resources on it, including funds if need. But we need to be clear also about platforms and activities we are unable to maintain and mark it deprecated. | * Sugarizer contents grow regularly and we could expect that it allow us to expand our user base. But SugarLabs lack of maintainer for Sugar core and for Sugar activities. We need to be clear about which platforms we want to maintain and allow resources on it, including funds if need. But we need to be clear also about platforms and activities we are unable to maintain and mark it deprecated. | ||
* We've done a good job with Google partnership with GSoC and GCI. But too much source code are just throw away at the end of GSoC and too much mentors are useless or are just unable to do the task they mentor. We need a real process to qualify projects and mentors for future GSoC and GCI: writing an idea in a wiki page should not be a way to qualify a project, attending a meeting should not be a way to qualify a good mentor. | * We've done a good job with Google partnership with GSoC and GCI. But too much source code are just throw away at the end of GSoC and too much mentors are useless or are just unable to do the task they mentor. We need a real process to qualify projects and mentors for future GSoC and GCI: writing an idea in a wiki page should not be a way to qualify a project, attending a meeting should not be a way to qualify a good mentor. | ||
| − | * We are an open source community. It should be asserted on our webpage and we must choose tools compatible with that philosophy. It's not acceptable | + | * We are an open source community. It should be asserted on our webpage and we must choose tools compatible with that philosophy. It's not acceptable for example that today the SugarLabs webpage include multiple tracking tools. |
With the help of other SLOB members, my wish is to try to solve these issues in next 2 years and to be sure that all of us could be proud to work on the leading learning platform. | With the help of other SLOB members, my wish is to try to solve these issues in next 2 years and to be sure that all of us could be proud to work on the leading learning platform. | ||
Thanks for your attention and thanks in advance for your support. | Thanks for your attention and thanks in advance for your support. | ||
Latest revision as of 12:04, 27 November 2018
Hi all,
My name is Lionel Laské, you could learn more about me here.
As you probably know I'm author and main contributor of Sugarizer, a rewrite of Sugar to run on any device.
When I launched this project 5 years ago, my only objective was to maintain alive the spirit of Sugar and SugarLabs. Today I'm happy to see that in OLPC France we'll very soon reach the point where we deployed more Sugarizer devices than XO laptops: about 300.
I think the Sugarizer initiative is a success and could really be a nice future for Sugar and SugarLabs.
But I'm disappointed by the current situation of SugarLabs:
- We want to give the better learning experience to learner on their devices. But our marketing is not clear: our users doesn't want know what is Sugar and Sugarizer. They want the better learning platform, whatever technical stuff inside. We need to be more clear on it and guide our users with easy steps, not with complex and outdated wiki pages.
- Sugarizer contents grow regularly and we could expect that it allow us to expand our user base. But SugarLabs lack of maintainer for Sugar core and for Sugar activities. We need to be clear about which platforms we want to maintain and allow resources on it, including funds if need. But we need to be clear also about platforms and activities we are unable to maintain and mark it deprecated.
- We've done a good job with Google partnership with GSoC and GCI. But too much source code are just throw away at the end of GSoC and too much mentors are useless or are just unable to do the task they mentor. We need a real process to qualify projects and mentors for future GSoC and GCI: writing an idea in a wiki page should not be a way to qualify a project, attending a meeting should not be a way to qualify a good mentor.
- We are an open source community. It should be asserted on our webpage and we must choose tools compatible with that philosophy. It's not acceptable for example that today the SugarLabs webpage include multiple tracking tools.
With the help of other SLOB members, my wish is to try to solve these issues in next 2 years and to be sure that all of us could be proud to work on the leading learning platform.
Thanks for your attention and thanks in advance for your support.